Political correctness kills.

Now we are learning that Dr. Hasan, the murderer of Fort Hood, was cut enormously more slack than any non-Muslim would have received. He retained his position only because of his minority status.

“Two years ago, a top psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center was so concerned about what he saw as Nidal Hasan’s incompetence and reckless behavior that he put those concerns in writing. NPR has obtained a copy of the memo, the first evaluation that has surfaced from Hasan’s file.

Officials at Walter Reed sent that memo to Fort Hood this year when Hasan was transferred there.

Nevertheless, commanders still assigned Hasan — accused of killing 13 people in a mass shooting at Fort Hood on Nov. 5 — to work with some of the Army’s most troubled and vulnerable soldiers.

The Damning Memo

On May 17, 2007, Hasan’s supervisor at Walter Reed sent the memo to the Walter Reed credentials committee. It reads, “Memorandum for: Credentials Committee. Subject: CPT Nidal Hasan.” More than a page long, the document warns that: “The Faculty has serious concerns about CPT Hasan’s professionalism and work ethic. … He demonstrates a pattern of poor judgment and a lack of professionalism.” It is signed by the chief of psychiatric residents at Walter Reed, Maj. Scott Moran.

(more…)

3 bodies found in burnt apartment; roommate charged: Houston police suspect blaze was used to cover up a crime, by Anita Hassan, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 16, 2009.

Police are searching for a suspect who has been accused in the deaths of three men found dead Sunday night after firefighters extinguished a one-alarm blaze in a building just north of downtown a fire authorities said they believe was set to cover up foul play.

Ken Pham, 36, who was initially considered a person of interest in the case, has been charged with capital murder.

He was one of four roommates who lived in an apartment where the fire broke out.

Witnesses told police that Pham was seen leaving the building shortly after they heard gunshots and just before the fire started. Pham allegedly pointed a gun at one of the witnesses before fleeing the scene, police said.

He was dressed in a security guard uniform and driving a green Toyota Camry.

“All indications thus far are that foul play is involved,’’ said John Cannon, a spokesman for the Houston Police Department. “and that the fire was set to cover something up.’’

Hat tip, RC.

From the Washington Post:

Sniper John Allen Muhammad is executed
10 died in Oct. 2002 rampage; motivation remains unclear

Why was the Palestinian Muslim terrorist / U.S. Army major such a hot potato for the mainstream media last week that they tried various misdirection ploys, such as the New York Times‘ November 7th article “When Soldiers Snap“?

A few reasons:

1. The press has indoctrinated itself to despise stereotypes, partly for ideological reasons, partly for economic ones–“Man Bites Dog” is a better headline than “Dog Bites Man.” Yet another Palestinian Muslim terrorist is a “Dog Bites Man” story.

2. Another reason is that Major Hasan is such a classic example of “dual loyalties.” We’ve all been told over and over again that the entire concept of dual loyalties is a baseless anti-Semitic smear and therefore doesn’t exist.

In truth, of course, multiple loyalties are an unavoidable reality of life, which is precisely why George Washington’s Farewell Address (the single most carefully considered utterance by the Founding Fathers — it was worked on over four years by Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jay) devotes so much effort to warning about how to handle them. For example:

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

3. There’s the Barack Hussein Obama angle. The press has a strong feeling that they must protect Obama from anything that could tangentially tarnish him. Of course, if they would just read Obama’s memoir carefully, they would see that Islam never had any appeal for him–it’s too universalist. The President liked all of The Autobiography of Malcolm X until the uninspiring conclusion when Malcolm converts from the Nation of Islam to orthodox Islam after seeing the races mix on pilgrimage in Mecca.

From the Washington Post:

Under a slide titled “Comments,” he wrote: “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for God against injustices of the ‘infidels’; ie: enemies of Islam, then Muslims can become a potent adversary ie: suicide bombing, etc.” [sic]

The last bullet point on that page reads simply: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!”

Under the “Conclusions” page, Hasan wrote that “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam,” and that “Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!”

The final page, labeled “Recommendation,” contained only one suggestion:

“Department of Defense should allow Muslims (sic) Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors’ to increase troop morale and decrease adverse events.”

Of course, conscientious objection status is only granted to pacifists, not to people who would rather hurt us than the enemy.

If he survives, the Ft. Hood shooter will of course be charged with murder, but it’s reasonable to inquire whether treason should also be charged. After all, for a major in the U.S. Army, trained at taxpayer expense in the use of weapons, to shoot 40 unarmed comrades-in-arms would seem like a reasonable example of waging war on the United States.

However, the Constitution’s delineation of treason might not cover this:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

What does “levying war” mean? Although “levying” is sometimes today said to be the same as “waging,” that doesn’t appear to be the legal definition. In one of the the treason cases (Bollman) growing out of the still mysterious Aaron Burr conspiracy, the Chief Justice John Marshall of the Supreme Court ruled in 1807, “But there must be an actual assembling of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war.” In other words, “levying” means raising a body of warriors. Therefore, whether Major Hasan plotted solely alone or was conspiring with others, and if so, did they in some fashion “assemble,” would appear to be relevant.

On the other hand, the second type of treason, “or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort” would appear to be an easier hurdle to leap. The first time the Supreme Court upheld a treason conviction was in the 1947 Haupt case in which naturalized citizen Hans Mark Haupt was sentenced to life in prison for sheltering in his Chicago home his son, a German spy (one of the eight saboteurs landed by a German sub in a semi-farcical failed infiltration). The son was convicted by military tribunal and executed. In the father’s case, noted civil libertarian Justice William O. Douglas wrote the majority opinion upholding the father’s conviction, while Justice Jackson wrote a lonely dissent arguing that the father’s intentions were filial rather than treasonous.

Since the elder Haupt was legally guilty of treason for merely helping his son, then Hasan’s shooting two score American soldiers in cold blood would appear to be an even better example of “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” However, that does raise the issue of who exactly our Enemies are, a question that has been left rather ambiguous by Congress’ refusal to issue a Declaration of War since 1942.

Adrian Blomfield of the neocon Daily Telegraph does a great job of giving the Ft. Hood shooter’s Palestinian cousins in Ramallah in the West Bank (Ramallah is the capital of the Palestinian National Authority) enough rope:

Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan is the suspected shooter at Fort Hood U.S Army Post where according to authorities 12 people were shot and killed and 31 other were wounded Photo: EPA

Speaking from their home in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Hasan’s relatives painted a picture of a man cornered into an act of “lunacy” by the repeated discrimination of his peers and an attempt by the army to force him to serve in Afghanistan.

“They discriminated against him because he was a Muslim,” Mohammed Mohammed, one of Hasan’s cousins, told the Daily Telegraph. “We’re not trying to make excuses for him but what we were told was that he was under a lot of pressure.

“What we imagine is that he could not take this bad treatment and gave vent unfortunately.” …

In the house next door, Hasan’s brother Anas had locked himself indoors with his wife, refusing to speak to anyone, including his relatives.

According to his cousins, Hasan was badly scarred by the deaths of his parents in 1998 and 2001. Along with his two brothers, he became increasingly devout, they said.

“They became very religious after their mother died,” Mohammed Hasan said. “They were very observant. They prayed a lot.”

Yet the two cousins insisted that the major’s religion was not tinged with political fanaticism, although they said he had become increasingly withdrawn and uncommunicative in recent years.

(more…)

William Saletan [Email him] writes in Slate

“Fort Hood, Texas, hosts tens of thousands of men who are trained to fight for their country. But none of them stopped Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan as he blew away 13 of their colleagues Thursday afternoon. It was a civilian police officer, Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who confronted and shot him in an exchange of gunfire.”[Girls in the Hood | If women can defend Fort Hood, they can defend America. By William Saletan, November 6, 2009]

That’s stupid–the reason that none of the servicemen present on the scene shot Major Hasan because none of them had a gun. The Army has a mania for keeping loaded guns away from soldiers, which it not only exercises at Fort Hood and Fort Dix, but in Iraq, Afghanistan and on the Mexican Border.

Women can make good police officers, in spite of their physical weakness, but they can’t do ground combat.  Fred Reed explains why:

(more…)

A bunch of people have been shot in Orlando, Florida’s Gateway Center  office building. Police are seeking a man named Jason Rodriguez.

UPDATE: Suspect in custody.

Here’s the AP:

Details emerge about Fort Hood suspect background

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE (AP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.

There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive.[More]

The word Muslim, which you’ll notice does not appear as a modifier to the word “radical” in “radical Internet postings”. The word Muslim first appears in this story 365 words down, in reference to the fact that Islam is unpopular in the army.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Hasan’s aunt, Noel Hasan of Falls Church, Va., said he had been harassed about being a Muslim in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and he wanted out of the Army.

“Some people can take it and some people cannot,” she said. “He had listened to all of that and he wanted out of the military.”

There’s more about the Muslim background, but they’re still radically puzzled about his motive.(The photograph above shows Nidal Malik Hasan wearing Muslim dress in 7-Eleven on the morning of the attack.)

More from Tim Blair:INFORMATION LEARNED, CONCEALED.

Mark Steyn is talking about it on Rush Limbaugh. (Listen here.)